I've been practicing my data science skillz with my massive archive of QWTF match statistics and regular readers of this forum (all three of you) may find my first results interesting.

http://qwtf.digitaljedi.com/analysis/weapons_by_class/

Comments welcome.

Nearly all of the demos are at least 10 years old. It would be interesting to see how weapon usage has changed as everyone has since gotten a much better pc and a internet connection which makes the play style completely different. There seems to be nearly 400 recorded MVD demos at gizmo.fi if you want to get stats from more modern games even though most of them would not fall under your rules as we mostly play 2on2 or 3on3 due to lack of players. Still it's quite organised and I'm thinking higher level than clan matches 10-15 years ago.

It would be interesting to gather same statistics for damage given and
compare damage versus frags distribution.

Awesome! Keep it up QW community needs more "computer science engineers".

thin client by d22 to fast/easy demo download from qw servers:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ggvfjog0tkhdd2e/dd.tar.gz?dl=0

@mipa: I think the results would be pretty dramatically different given that 2v2 or 3v3 is played much more differently than 8v8 or 10v10. Also, you guys play OvD, right? That would be another difference. As far as where those differences would show up in the analysis...well, I imagine demoman, soldier, scout, medic are the most used classes...maybe engineer. I'm also guessing that defense is almost exclusively soldier and demoman...ok, maybe not *that* much different from the late 1990s. Is there a master listing of all the gizmo.fi demos? I found http://www.gizmo.fi/demos/ but that's only got ~30 demos, though I see that there's some decent variety.

@se-sss: Unfortunately, we have to use frags as our data because QWTF logs don't have damage measures. I know TF2 logs do have that information, and if I move on to TF2 match analysis (I just might) I would definitely want to include that sort of information.

@dimman: Thanks!

@mushi: I'll think about it.

Thanks for the comments so far.